The 7th CIRP IPSS Conference 21-22 May 2015

Saint-Etienne, France

by

Romain Allais1, Julie Gobert1, Bertrand Laratte1, Bertrand Guillaume1, Dominique Bourg2

Presenting Author: Romain Allais1 Creidd, Hetic, ICD, Université de technologie de Troyes, UMR 6281, CNRS, Troyes, France

2 Université de Lausanne, Faculté des géosciences et de l’environnement, Institut géographie et durabilité, Suisse.

Romain.allais@utt.fr

Small household equipment toward sustainability

2

Agenda

• Motivations• Objectives• Structuration of the service• Challenges• Methology• Discussions and conclusions

Small household equipment & functional economy transition

• Current challenges for producers (interviews within SHE producer)– Customer demand– Production costs– Regulations (WEEE)

• Opportunities for functional economy1 transition– Shared use and collaborative consumption (Botsman, Rodger, 2010)– Performance economy (Stahel, 2007)

Experiment in vivo the partial transition from product sales to product leasing.

31 « Strategy aimed at decouple economic growth and increasing consumption of natural resources » (Bourg, Buclet, 2005), (Du Tertre, 2007)

4

Objectives

Our mission is to assess and analyse• The sustainability of the system {service within its

territory}• The structuring of the offer among partners• The changes induced by the transition.

In order to provide… • Recommendations for products design, partners

internal organization or service structuration • Develop scenarios for middle and long-term planning

5

Structuring the service

Logistics, cleaning and maintenance

Product* and packaging production

& End-of-life Delivery

Use

SHE producer,Project leader

New packaging supplier

Firm specialized in social insertion

Approved repairer

Network of supermarkets

ConsumersSHE producer (EPR) & local authorities

WEB service

Web service supplier

* 28 products, no change in design yet

Natural

Social spaceAnthropized

Industrial

Adapted from (Moine, 2006)

250,000 inhabitant« Social neutrality »Proximities

6

Structuring the service

Logistics, cleaning and maintenance

Product* and packaging production

& End-of-life Delivery

Use

SHE producer,Project leader

New packaging supplier

Firm specialized in social insertion

Approved repairer

Network of supermarkets

ConsumersSHE producer (EPR) & local authorities

WEB service

Web service supplier

* 28 products, no change in design yet

7

Challenges 1/2

• Assess the sustainability of the offer– « Existing studies on PSS can be classified into four groups

according to focus evaluation namely economic, environmental, social and customer value » […] « no study has integrated the four values into a single framework »1

– Existing multi-criteria assessment of PSS are mainly dedicated to B-to-B market with a quantitative approach with a business and/or customer perspective2

• No unified methodology for sustainability assessment of PSS

• What about the societal/territorial perspective?1 (Kim et Al., 2015); 2(Abramovici et Al., 2014), (Lindhal et Al., 2014), (Morlock et al;, 2014), (Vogtländer et al., 2002) ;

8

Challenges 2/2

• Analyze and qualify stakeholders – evolutions

• Consumer behavior (who? why? how often?...)• Service providers (rational, expectations, competencies…)

– interactions• service structuration• community of practices and proximities1

• Extrapolate organizational and societal changes

Dynamic, multicriteria and transdisciplinary, qualitative and quantitative approach (transition toward sustainability)

1 Gobert, J., Allais, R., Construire les proximités dans un monde global : enjeux territoriaux, organisationnels et sociétaux, 8ème journée de la proximité, Tours, 20-22 mai 2015

9

Toolbox

• Comparative life cycle assessment (sales VS renting)– reference methodology (Nissen, 1997 ), (Valkalma, 2008)

– frequently used for PSS evaluation (Chan et Al., 2014), (Lindhal et Al., 2014),

(Vogtländer et al., 2002). Challenges for LCA in PSS : identification of functional unit, system boundaries, etc. (Baines et Al., 2007), (Amaya et Al., 2014) • Sociology of organizations framework for stakeholder analysis during the

experiment (Friedberg, 1993)• A scorecard extended to intangible for the management of the whole

value chain with a qualitative and quantitative approach (Fustec et Al., 2011)

• Forecasting & backcasting scenarios for future planning (possible & desirable) (Dreborg, 1996), (Robert, 2000), (Guillaume, 2009)

10

1- Upstream of the experiment

• Semi-structured interviews with the different partners of the project– original motivation and concerns, apprehension and expectations– current activities (i.e. internal organization, logistics etc.)

• LCA is performed all along the experiment, alternative end-of-life scenarios are proposed

• Logistic model developped to optimize the logistic (frequency, volume)

From this first step, influencing factors emerged (i.e. collaboration, interfaces, logistic etc.)

11

Focus on intangibles

• Extended scorecard1: key assets for this case– Human capital (e.g. knowledge, motivation etc.) – Information system capital (i.e. ergonomics website, flexibility, etc.)– Customer capital (i.e. customer fidelity, satisfaction, etc.)– Organizational capital (i.e. share of values, process quality, etc.)– Brand capital (i.e. notoriety, confidence, etc.)– Territorial capital (i.e. use of local resources, attractiveness, etc.)– Natural capital (i.e. resource consumption, emissions, etc.)

Analysis and assessment framework for value creation factors

1 Fustec et Al., 2011, Référentiel français de mesure de la valeur extra-financière et financière du capital immatériel des entreprises.

12

2- During the experiment

• Evolution and influence of identified key factors– Interviews are conducted again (+3, +6 months) to

identify the changes in the perceptions of users and providers of the service. – LCA and logistic models are implemented with data

from the web application (i.e. number and types of devices rented, default in the delivery, quality issues etc.). – Extended scorecard is implemented and improved

• Iterative improvement of the service.

13

3- Downstream of the experiment

• Recommendations – product and service design

• comparative LCA, end-of-life, logistics optimization, quality defaults• bibliography design for recycling, remanufacturing, upcycling• qualitative assessment of the interfaces (web and delivery)

– organizational challenges and issues (management, communication, value share)

– impact on customers behaviour (individual and collective interviews)

• Scenarios are developed for middle and long term planning based on key factors – Special attention is given to the transposability of the business

model to another geographic area and/or product-services

14

Discussion on methodology

• Economic dimension is not included in our study perimeter

• Perimeter and scale– LCA concerns only one device (on 28), and considers every steps of the

product life cycle from cradle to grave.– Sociological study put an emphasis on the interactions with a specific focus on

the interface

• Ecodesign of PSS : specific VS generic?– Contextualization is crucial for the sociological assessment (specific generic)– LCA and design studies are generic (generic specific)

Complementary or contradictory approaches?

15

Conclusions

This action research has the potential to contribute to • foundation for integrated framework for PSS analysis and

assessment• the understanding of success or failure factors of servitization

regarding engineering, organizational and sociological issues. • influence factors on customers behaviour• incremental improvement on impact assessment methodology

dedicated to PSS.• measure externalities of PSS with a larger scope (societal perspective)• scenarios for future changes with multiple perspectives

The first phase is done, second will come soon (sept. 2015)

16

Thanks for your attentionromain.allais@utt.fr

This project is funded by the French Environment and Energy Management

Agency (ADEME).